Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1 and 11 has been amended
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/13/2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance. This action is made final.
Status of Rejections Pending
since The Office Action of 01/27/2026
The examiner modified rejection below to address claim amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7 and 11, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by EP3496160, hereinafter as ‘160.
Regarding claim 1, ‘160 teaches a solar cell comprising: a converging busbar (top horizontal fingers 8 [fig 18 19] extending along a second direction, wherein the converging busbar separates a first surface of the solar cell into a first region and a second region, the first region is located on a first side of the converging busbar, and the second region is located on a second side of the converging busbar, and the converging busbar separates a second surface of the solar cell into a third region and a fourth region, the third region on the second surface of the solar cell is located on the second side of the converging busbar and opposite to the second region of the first surface, and the fourth region on the second surface of the solar cell is located on the first side of the converging busbar and opposite to the first region of the first surface [fig 18 19 see drawing below]. Also, the first region comprises:
a plurality of first sub-busbars 8 extending along the second direction and spaced from one another along a first direction perpendicular to the second direction, for collecting a photo-generated current of the first region; and
a plurality of main busbars 6 extending along the first direction and spaced from one another along the second direction, wherein the plurality of main busbars are electrically connected to the plurality of first sub-busbars and electrically connected to the converging busbar, for collecting the photo-generated current of the first region and transmitting the photo-generated current to the converging busbar [fig 18 19], and
the second region comprises: a plurality of second sub-busbars 4a extending along the first direction and spaced from one another along the second direction, for collecting a photo-generated current of the second region, wherein the plurality of second sub-busbars are electrically connected to the converging busbar and configured to transmit the photo-generated current of the second region to the converging busbar [fig 18 19].
the third region of the second surface has a same structure as the first region of the first surface, and the fourth region of the second surface has a same structure as the second region of the first surface [fig 18 19]
PNG
media_image1.png
614
930
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, 160 teaches an arrangement on the second surface of the solar cell is in rotational symmetry with respect to an arrangement on the first surface of the solar cell along a virtual axis of the converging busbar [fig 18 19].
Regarding claim 11, ‘160 teaches a solar module comprising a plurality of solar cells distributed along a certain arrangement direction (abstract), wherein a solar cell of the plurality of solar cells comprises:
a converging busbar (top horizontal fingers 8 [fig 18 19] extending along a second direction, wherein the converging busbar separates a first surface of the solar cell into a first region and a second region, the first region is located on a first side of the converging busbar, and the second region is located on a second side of the converging busbar, and the converging busbar separates a second surface of the solar cell into a third region and a fourth region, the third region on the second surface of the solar cell is located on the second side of the converging busbar and opposite to the second region of the first surface, and the fourth region on the second surface of the solar cell is located on the first side of the converging busbar and opposite to the first region of the first surface [fig 18 19 see drawing below].
the first region comprises:
a plurality of first sub-busbars 8 extending along the second direction and spaced from one another along a first direction perpendicular to the second direction, for collecting a photo-generated current of the first region; and
a plurality of main busbars 6 extending along the first direction and spaced from one another along the second direction, wherein the plurality of main busbars are electrically connected to the plurality of first sub-busbars and electrically connected to the converging busbar, for collecting the photo-generated current of the first region and transmitting the photo-generated current to the converging busbar [fig 18 19], and
the second region comprises:
a plurality of second sub-busbars 4a extending along the first direction and spaced from one another along the second direction, for collecting a photo-generated current of the second region, wherein the plurality of second sub-busbars are electrically connected to the converging busbar and configured to transmit the photo-generated current of the second region to the converging busbar [fig 18 19].
the third region of the second surface has a same structure as the first region of the first surface, and the fourth region of the second surface has a same structure as the second region of the first surface [fig 18 19]
PNG
media_image1.png
614
930
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, ‘160 teaches an arrangement on the second surface of the solar cell is in rotational symmetry with respect to an arrangement on the first surface of the solar cell along a virtual axis of the converging busbar [fig 18 19].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7-9, 11, 13, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by CN 110277460, hereinafter as’460.
Regarding claim 1, ‘460 teaches a solar cell comprising: a converging busbar (top horizontal fingers [fig 9] extending along a second direction, wherein the converging busbar separates a first surface of the solar cell into a first region and a second region, the first region is located on a first side of the converging busbar, and the second region is located on a second side of the converging busbar, and the converging busbar separates a second surface of the solar cell into a third region and a fourth region, the third region on the second surface of the solar cell is located on the second side of the converging busbar and opposite to the second region of the first surface, and the fourth region on the second surface of the solar cell is located on the first side of the converging busbar and opposite to the first region of the first surface (since the cells are connected in series [fig 18, 19], it is considered to be there are the third and fourth region on the second side or back side of solar cells) (fig 9 see drawing below]. Also, the first region comprises:
a plurality of first sub-busbars extending along the second direction and spaced from one another along a first direction perpendicular to the second direction, for collecting a photo-generated current of the first region; and
a plurality of main busbars extending along the first direction and spaced from one another along the second direction, wherein the plurality of main busbars are electrically connected to the plurality of first sub-busbars and electrically connected to the converging busbar, for collecting the photo-generated current of the first region and transmitting the photo-generated current to the converging busbar [fig 9], and
the second region comprises: a plurality of second sub-busbars extending along the first direction and spaced from one another along the second direction, for collecting a photo-generated current of the second region, wherein the plurality of second sub-busbars are electrically connected to the converging busbar and configured to transmit the photo-generated current of the second region to the converging busbar [fig 9].
since the solar cells are connected to series [fig 19], it is considered that the third region of the second surface has a same structure as the first region of the first surface, and the fourth region of the second surface has a same structure as the second region of the first surface for interconnection.
PNG
media_image2.png
549
907
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, ‘460 teaches W1<W1 [fig 9]
Regarding claim 7, ‘460 teaches an arrangement on the second surface of the solar cell is in rotational symmetry with respect to an arrangement on the first surface of the solar cell along a virtual axis of the converging busbar [fig 9 19].
Regarding claim 8, ‘460 teaches each busbar of the plurality of second sub-busbars does not have solder points [fig 9]
Regarding claim 9, ‘460 teaches the second region and the fourth region do not have main busbar [fig 9]
Regarding claim 11, ‘460 teaches a solar module comprising a plurality of solar cells distributed along a certain arrangement direction (fig 20), wherein a solar cell of the plurality of solar cells comprises:
a converging busbar (top horizontal fingers [fig 9] extending along a second direction, wherein the converging busbar separates a first surface of the solar cell into a first region and a second region, the first region is located on a first side of the converging busbar, and the second region is located on a second side of the converging busbar, and the converging busbar separates a second surface of the solar cell into a third region and a fourth region, the third region on the second surface of the solar cell is located on the second side of the converging busbar and opposite to the second region of the first surface, and the fourth region on the second surface of the solar cell is located on the first side of the converging busbar and opposite to the first region of the first surface [fig 18 19 see drawing below].
the first region comprises:
a plurality of first sub-busbars extending along the second direction and spaced from one another along a first direction perpendicular to the second direction, for collecting a photo-generated current of the first region; and
a plurality of main busbars 6 extending along the first direction and spaced from one another along the second direction, wherein the plurality of main busbars are electrically connected to the plurality of first sub-busbars and electrically connected to the converging busbar, for collecting the photo-generated current of the first region and transmitting the photo-generated current to the converging busbar [fig 9], and
the second region comprises:
a plurality of second sub-busbars extending along the first direction and spaced from one another along the second direction, for collecting a photo-generated current of the second region, wherein the plurality of second sub-busbars are electrically connected to the converging busbar and configured to transmit the photo-generated current of the second region to the converging busbar [fig 9].
since the solar cells are connected to series [fig 19], it is considered that the third region of the second surface has a same structure as the first region of the first surface, and the fourth region of the second surface has a same structure as the second region of the first surface for interconnection.
PNG
media_image2.png
549
907
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, ‘460 teaches W1<W1 [fig 9]
Regarding claim 17, ‘160 teaches an arrangement on the second surface of the solar cell is in rotational symmetry with respect to an arrangement on the first surface of the solar cell along a virtual axis of the converging busbar [fig 9 19].
Regarding claim 18, ‘460 teaches each busbar of the plurality of second sub-busbars does not have solder points [fig 9]
Regarding claim 19, ‘460 teaches the second region and the fourth region do not have main busbar [fig 9]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110277460 as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Zheng et al (CN210866208).
Regarding claim 4 and 15, ‘460 teaches the claimed limitation, but ‘460 does not teach the claimed shunt line.
Zheng et al teaches a solar cell comprising plurality anti-break grid 8 which is considered to be the shunt line and connected two grid lines 5 [fig 3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the plurality of anti break grids of Zheng et al to be spaced along the first direction are provided between each two adjacent main busbars, and one of the pluralities of shunt lines is electrically connected to two adjacent first sub-busbars as taught by ‘460 for preventing line breaking.
Claim(s) 3, 5-6, 14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110277460 as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Bitnar et al (PG Pub 20160155865).
Regarding claim 3, 14, ‘460 teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above, but ‘460 the W1, W3 and W4 as claimed.
Binar teaches dimension and number of fingers electrode and bubars depending on the design [para 31] for optimizing the cell’s efficiency [para 15].
The court has held that absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results, optimization of a result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art."[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP§ 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, absent the showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to design the W1, W3 and W4 of ‘460 to arrive the claimed range by adjust the length of the sub-busbar and busbar for optimizing the cell’s efficiency [para 15].
Regarding claim 5, 16, ‘460 teaches there being a spacing between two adjacent main busbar and spacing between two adjacent first sub-bubars, but ‘460 does not teaches the value of two spacing.
Bitnar teaches the number of busbar and finger electrode depending on the design [para 15 25 29, 31] for optimizing the cell’s efficiency. Thus, the spacing between two adjacent main bus bar and spacing between two adjacent first sub-busbar depend on the number of busbar and sub-busbar (or finger electrode),
The court has held that absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results, optimization of a result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art."[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP§ 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, absent the showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the spacing between two adjacent main bus bar and spacing between two adjacent first sub-busbar to arrive the claimed range by adjusting the number of busbar and sub-busbar for optimizing the cell’s efficiency [para 15].
Regarding claim 6 and 16, ‘460 teaches there being spacing between two adjacent second sub-bubars, but ‘460 does not teaches the value of two spacing.
Bitnar teaches the number of busbar and finger electrode depending on the design [para 15 25 29, 31] for optimizing the cell’s efficiency. Thus, the spacing between two adjacent second sub-busbar depend on the number of busbar and sub-busbar (or finger electrode),
The court has held that absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results, optimization of a result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art."[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP§ 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, absent the showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the spacing between two adjacent second sub-busbar to arrive the claimed range by adjusting the number of busbar and sub-busbar for optimizing the cell’s efficiency [para 15].
Regarding claim 10 and 20, ‘460 teaches there being spacing between two adjacent second sub-bubars, but ‘460 does not teaches in the first region, a quantity of first sub-busbars located between an outermost main busbar of the plurality of main busbars and an adjacent main busbar of the plurality of main busbars is greater than a quantity of first sub-busbars of the plurality of first sub-busbars located between any other two adjacent main busbars.
Bitnar teaches the number of busbar and finger electrode depending on the design [para 15 25 29, 31] for optimizing the cell’s efficiency.
The court has held that absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results, optimization of a result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art."[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP§ 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, absent the showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to the number of first sub-busbar to arrive the claimed range by adjusting the number of sub-busbar as taught by Bitnar for optimizing the cell’s efficiency [para 15].
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110277460 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Heng et al (PG Pub 20150270410).
Regarding claim 12, ‘460 teaches the plurality of solar cell being electrical connected with wiring which connected to the main bus bar[ fig 5A B] , but ‘460 does not teach the solder strip as claimed.
Heng et al teaches a solar cell module comprising a solder strip 524 where adjacent solar cells of the plurality of solar cells is electrically connected through a solder strip, each edge busbar on the first surface of a solar cell is fixedly connected to one end of the solder strip, and each edge busbar on the second surface of another solar cell is fixedly connected to the other end of the solder strip [fig 5C para 70]. Also, lengths of the solder strips located on two sides of the solar cell do not exceed 2/3 of a length of the solar cell in the first direction [fig 5 Cheng et al].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace the wirings of ‘460 by the solder strips of Heng et al for low series resistance [para 70].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues in substance:
'160 at least fails to disclose or suggest the "converging busbar" as recited in claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. ‘160 teaches strip or ribbon 6 being used for electrical connected. Thus, ribbon 6 is considered to be a part of the solar cell. Also, ‘160 teaches the converging busbar 8 (top horizontal line 8) being used for electrical connected. Thus, ‘160’s converging busbar has the same structure and function as claimed and converging busbar, main busbar and sub busbar are formed the structure of the single solar cell.
'460's is silent on the specific arrangement of the rear silver paste layer of a solar cell, as all the structural configuration disclosed in '460 is directed to the front silver paste layer only.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. ‘460 teaches the solar cell of fig 9 being divided into ½ fragment and the solar cells are connected in series with using both front side and rear side of electrical interconnected. Thus, the rear side has same structure as the front side for interconnection. Also, fig 17-19 shows how the solar cells are being series interconnected and any structure of the solar cell from fig 1-10 (in this case it is the solar cell structure from fig 1) are used in the structure in fig 17-19. Thus, by applying the structure of the solar cell of fig 19 in modules fig 17-19, it would have the third region of the second surface has a same structure as the first region of the first surface, and the fourth region of the second surface has a same structure as the second region of the first surface for interconnection.
the half-cut cell shown in Fig. 9 of '460 cannot be assembled as the photovoltaic module of the present application, since the two surfaces of the solar cell of '460 do not have a rotational symmetry but mirror symmetry. Also, ‘460 does not teach the third region of the second surface has a same structure as the first region of the first surface, and the fourth region of the second surface has a same structure as the second region of the first surface for interconnection.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. ‘460 teaches fig 9 being divided into ½ fragment with arranged structure of main busbar, converging bus bar and sub busbar in the same structure with both front and rear side. Also, the solar cell of fig 9 would be used for series interconnection. Thus, it would have the third region of the second surface has a same structure as the first region of the first surface, and the fourth region of the second surface has a same structure as the second region of the first surface for interconnection and in rotational symmetry.
'460 fails to disclose or suggest at least the above limitation of amended claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. ‘460 teaches the claimed amendment as set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN M TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at 5712721307. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/UYEN M TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights